Domestic Violence Act: SC Says Non-Appearance Of Husband Cannot Lead To Eviction Of Mother, Sisters From Shared Household

The Supreme Court has held that a husband’s failure to appear in domestic violence proceedings cannot be a ground to evict his mother and sisters from the shared household, clarifying that the law does not permit a magistrate to order the removal of women from such premises under Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi emphasised that under Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act, a magistrate is empowered to pass protection orders, but the proviso expressly bars the passing of an order under clause (b) against any person who is a woman.

Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by Shahjahan and others, the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of Yasmeen, and held that the magistrate had erred in ordering their removal from the shared household because of the non-appearance of Yasmeen's husband, Sonu.

What does Section 19(1)(b) of the Domestic Violence Act provide?

Section 19(1)(b) empowers a magistrate to direct the respondent to remove himself from the shared household. However, its proviso expressly states that no order under clause (b) can be passed against a person who is a woman.

Yasmeen, wife of Sonu, had filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act before the jurisdictional magistrate seeking protection and maintenance of Rs 25,000 per month for herself and her minor daughter, besides an order restraining alienation of the shared household and other reliefs.

As the proceedings had remained pending for more than two years and six months, Yasmeen approached the Uttarakhand High Court seeking directions for their expeditious disposal.

On June 19, 2025, the high court admitted the application and issued notice to the respondents, observing that their presence was required.

On July 29, 2025, the high court recorded the absence of Sonu and directed the applicants to take steps for service of notice through the consulate. They were also permitted to amend the pleadings regarding Sonu's current address and effect service through electronic means, including WhatsApp and email.

On July 2, 2026, the high court observed that Sonu was avoiding the proceedings while residing in Saudi Arabia. It directed the counsel appearing for his mother and sisters to obtain instructions regarding the date on which Sonu would appear, failing which it indicated that proceedings could be taken against respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

Thereafter, on July 6, 2026, an affidavit was filed by Yasmeen and non-bailable warrants and proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were directed to be initiated by the competent court against the concerned respondents.

The high court also ordered attachment of the property where the appellants, namely Sonu's mother and sisters, were residing and directed the jurisdictional SHO to file a compliance report.

According to the appellants, the residential property was subsequently attached and locked by the police, resulting in their ouster from the premises.

The respondents' counsel argued before the Supreme Court that the appeal had become infructuous since the high court had disposed of the criminal miscellaneous application by an order dated October 6, 2026, while directing that the pending proceedings be expedited.

The Bench, however, rejected the contention, observing that if the high court had dealt with or commented upon the impugned order while passing its final order, the Supreme Court would have refrained from expressing any opinion.

"However, the impugned order though, which was interim in nature is operating and continuing or by virtue of the said order the jurisdictional police seems to have attached the property, taken possession of the property and ousted the appellants from their house, where they were residing. This is highly impermissible," the Bench said.

Court further observed that even if an attachment order were passed, it would ordinarily mean that the property was being attached to prevent any encumbrance from being created over it. In other words, the property would come under the custody of the court, or become custodia legis.

"Even otherwise, the attachment even if any, would only mean and include the attachment of the property to prevent any encumbrance being created on the said property or in other words, the said property becoming custodia legis namely it would come to the custody of the court, at the most, this could have been the situation," the Bench said.

The Bench noted that locking the premises and ousting the appellants from their use and occupation was contrary to law.

"Hence, we have no hesitation in setting aside the said order and directing the raising of the attachment forthwith," the Bench said.

Court clarified that if Sonu was not appearing before the court, Yasmeen was free to take appropriate steps before the jurisdictional magistrate to secure his presence.

At the same time, Court acknowledged that Yasmeen was seeking justice and directed the jurisdictional magistrate to make all efforts to expedite the proceedings and secure Sonu's presence, if necessary, through a lookout notice or any other procedure established and permissible in law.

The Supreme Court accordingly disposed of the appeal and directed the trial court to expedite the hearing.

Case Title: Shahjahan & Ors Vs Yasmeen & Ors

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi

Date of Judgment: October 16, 2026